SUO: Re: Standard Upper Ontology Procedures
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
SUOP. Note 26
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
In: SUOP Outline. http://suo.ieee.org/email/thrd5.html#11584
Re: SUOP 24. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11877.html
JS = Jim Schoening
JS: Receipt of your suggestion is acknowledged.
JS: To find out what IEEE can do, email their Help-Desk
at helpdesk@ieee.org or call them at 732-562-5439.
JS: I can't image making this an open list (where anyone can post without
subscribing), but maybe IEEE filters can keep out the spam. As list
owner, I get plenty of 'Non-member' posting alerts, so I don't think
we want to allow these messages to get through.
JS: As for your request for objections, I don't think anyone will object
to your exploring this avenue. If you others can develop a viable
proposal, we can then see if the group wants to make the change.
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
Jim,
A response like that tells me that you are only nominally concerned,
that is to say, not really concerned to explore the finding of more
optimal ways of addressing what you keep insisting is a problem.
Very often people act this way, hanging onto a problem,
because it gives them a backchannel way of controlling
a process.
That will be my hypothesis until
I see evidence to the contrary.
Until then, I will not waste any more time or productivity on trying
to help you find solutions to problems whose non-solutions you have
already made up your mind to remain fixated on, for whatever pay-off
you hope you gain from them. It is obvious to me, not being a dummy,
and having lost the desire to go on politely pretending to be one,
that there is a hidden agenda here, and that it causes you to raise
this phoney "volume" issue precisely at times when productive work
begins to get started in this working group. We have now wasted
four days on it, and that is enough.
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o